Pavn 

Ch\v\ou  JTt^c 

IiatArn’  I 
ireloutions 

RELATIONS  WITH  CHINA. 


SPEE  O H 


DELIVERED  IN  THE 

SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


NOVEMBER  3,  1893, 

BY 

Hon,  Cushman  K.  Davis, 

OF  MINNESOTA, 

ON  THE 

CHINESE  EXCLUSION  LEGISLATION. 


■WASHING-XOIT. 

1893. 


7ty) 

t 

) / i iC*-- 

- ‘s 


SPEECH 

or 

HON.  CUSHMAN  K.  DAVIS. 


The  Senate,  as  In  Committee  of  the  Whole,  resumed  the  consideration  of 
the  bill  (H.  R.  3687)  to  amend  an  act  entitled  “An  act  to  prohibit  the  coming 
of  Chinese  persons  into  the  United  States,”  approved  May  5,  1892,  the  pend- 
ing question  being  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Squibb — 

Mr.  DAVIS  said: 

Mr.  President:  I submitted  yesterday  an  amendment  to  the 
pending  bill.  With  a desire  to  perfect  the  amendment  I send 
to  the  d^esk  a supplement  to  that  amendment,  which  I ask  to  have 
read. 

The  VICE-PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read  as  re- 
quested. 

The  Secretary.  Add  to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Davis: 

That  that  certain  act  entitled  “An  act  to  amend  an  act  entitled  ‘An  act  to 
■execute  certain  treaty  stipulations  relating  to  Chinese,  approved  May  6, 
1883,”’  approved  July  5, 1884,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  reenacted,  and  that 
such  act  thus  reenacted  shall  continue  in  force  until  the  expiration  of  ten 
years  after  the  passage  of  this  act. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  President,  it  is  certainly  unfortunate  for 
every  interest  involved  in  the  pending  bill  that  its  final  consider- 
ation or  even  its  discussion  should  be  pressed  at  the  present  time. 
It  is  perfectly  manifest  that  full  discussion  can  not  now  be  had 
upon  it.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  it  can  be  passed  in  the  pres- 
ent state  of  the  attendance  of  the  Senate.  It  is  a momentous  and 
far-reaching  measure,  one  which  has  appealed  to  the  conscience 
of  the  country  and  excited  everywhere  a great  deal  of  comment. 

We  have  just  passed  through  a long  and  strenuous  debate 
upon  one  single  subject.  We  have  enacted  the  most  important 
financial  legislation  that  Congress  has  ever  jiassed.  The  public 
mmd  and  the  minds  of  Senators  have  been  strained  under  the 
tension  of  this  extraordinary  session.  Both  sides  of  the  gold 
and  silver  shield  have  been  repeatedly  struck  by  champions  here 
and  elsewhere,  and  the  country  has  resounded  with  the  clangor. 
We  are  approaching  the  end  of  the  session.  The  time  of  ad- 
journment is  fixed,  and  I repeat,  that  to  bring  forward  a meas- 
ure of  this  importance,  involving  public  duty  and  personal  right 
to  the  extent  that  it  does,  is  most  unfortunate,  because  it  can 
not  result  in  adequate  debate  or  full  deliberation. 

Mr.  President,  our  relations  with  the  Empire  of  China  have 
for  many  years  been  of  the  most  perplexing  character.  The 
treaty  commonly  known  as  the  Burlingame  treaty,  negotiated 
in  IStiS,  was  concluded  at  a time  in  our  history  when  the  Ameri-  > 
can  people  had  the  most  effusive  ideas  in  regard  to  the  equality 
of  individuals  and  the  parity  of  the  personal  elements  of  which 
nations  are  composed.  We  were  then  going  through  the  experi- 
ment of  adopting  the  constitutional  amendments  whereby  we  in- 
700  3 


4 


troduced  as  an  operative  factor  into  our  body  politic  a race  ge- 
nerically  different  f i om  our  own;  and  we  are  now  endeavoring  tO’ 
adjust  that  experiment  to  existing  and  permanent  conditions. 

The  Burlingame  treaty  was  considered  to  he  a great  act  of 
diplomacy.  It  was  thought  that  it  would  be  followed  by  conse- 
quences of  wide  philanthropy  and  universal  brotherhood.  Its 
immediate  results  were,  no  doubt,  most  beneficial  to  the  Pacific 
States.  A new  influx  of  laborers  poured  the  efforts  of  their  in- 
dustry into  every  situation  demanding  employment.  They  built 
the  Central  Pacific  Railroad.  They  opened  in  California  its 
fields  of  wheat,  its  orchards  and  vineyards.  But  time  went  on 
rnd  it  was  discovered  (and  nobody  I know  of  entirely  dissents 
from  this  view)  that  probably  the  whole  experiment  was  of  an  un- 
desirable and  doubtful  character. 

Mr.  President,  I do  not  wish  to  be  for  a moment  misappre- 
hended in  regard  to  my  own  position , if  that  is  of  any  importance 
to  anybody  but  myself.  I am  as  much  opposed  as  my  friend  from 
California  [Mr.  Perkins]  to  the  immigration  of  Chinese  labor- 
ers. 1 do  not  want  to  see  this  element  grow  in  our  country.  I 
wish  to  see  it  steadily  diminished  in  efficacy  and  in  numbers  un- 
til it  shall  cease  to  exist.  But  what  I object  to,  and  concerning 
which  I have  the  clearest  convictions  of  my  duty,  is  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  proposed  to  depopulate  the  country  of  those  peo- 
ple. 

As  I have  said,  the  Burlingame  treaty  became  unsatisfactory; 
and  it  was  proposed  about  the  year  1880%  this  Government  that 
the  vast  and  generous  terms  of  that  convention,  by  which  Chi- 
nese were  permitted  to  come  to  this  country  ad  libitum,  should 
be  modified  by  treaty  stipulations  of  a new  and  restricted  char- 
acter. Accordingly  the  treaty  of  1880  was  concluded  between  the 
two  governments,  which  in  substance  provided  (I  shall  not  at- 
tempt to  state  statutes  or  treaties  literally)  that  whenever  in  the 
opinion  of  the  United  States  injurious  effects  are  threatened  or 
caused  by  the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers  to  the  United  States,  or 
their  residence  therein,  such  coming  or  residence  may  be  regu- 
lated, limited,  or  suspended,  but  not  absolutely  prohibited;  that 
the  limitation  or  suspension  shall  be  reasonable  and  shall  apply 
only  to  laborers,  and  immigrants  shall  not  be  subject  to  personal 
maltreatment  or  abuse.  That  is  the  essence  of  that  treaty  so  far 
as  the  immigration  of  laborers  i^  concerned. 

Within  four  years  after  its  ratification,  and  in  the  due  course 
of  legislation  two  acts  of  Congress  were  passed,  the  act  of  1882 
and  the  act  of  1884,  designed  to  carry  into  effect  the  stipulation 
of  the  convention  to  which  I have  just  alluded.  Without  going 
into  that  legislation  with  any  degree  of  particularity  (for,  as 
I have  said,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  do  so  at  any  stage  of  this 
discussion)  it  must  be  sufficient  to  say  that  those  statutes,  by  an 
elaborate  system  of  registration  and  certificates,  plainly  suffi- 
cient, I think,  and  certainly  sufficient  when  supplemented  by 
such  regulations  as  the  Treasury  Department  had  full  authority 
to  make,  were  adequate  to  carry  out  the  treaty  stipulations  and 
to  prevent  the  evil  which  was  to  be  apprehended. 

But  that,  Mr.  President,  was  not  deemed  sufficient.  Other 
treaty  stipulations  were  demanded  on  the  part  of  our  Government. 
Accordingly  in  the  year  1888  another  convention  still  more  re.- 
strictive  in  its  character  in  the  particulars  upon  which  I am 
talking  was  concluded  between  the  Empire  of  China  and  the; 
United  States.  In  anticipation  of  the  ratification  of  that  treaty 
700 


5 


the  act  of  September  13,  1888,  was  passed  by  Congress,  concern- 
ing which  it  is  sullicient  to  say  that  substantially  the  terms  of 
that  treaty  were  written  into  the  act  for  the  purpose  of  making 
it  efficacious  and  operative.  But  while  this  was  being  done  we 
were  on  the  eve  of  another  Presidential  election,  and  that  con- 
scienceless party  spirit,  concerning  which  neither  the  Demo- 
cratic nor  the  Republican  party  has  any  particular  right  to  re- 
proach the  other,  was  put  at  work  to  bid  for  political  support  in 
the  Pacific  States. 

Accordingly,  early  in  October,  1888,  what  is  comnaonly  known 
as  the  Scott  hill  was  passed,  by  which,  in  abrogation  of  the  terms 
of  the  treaty  of  1880,  the  right  of  the  Chinese  to  come  into  this 
country  was  very  much  limited,  and  certificates,  some  twenty 
thousand  in  number,  I have  been  told,  which  were  outstanding 
under  the  operations  of  the  treaty  of  1880  and  the  act  of  1882 
and  the  act  of  1884,  held  by  thousands  of  people  who  had  gone 
to  China  under  the  sanctity  of  that  legislation  and  that  treaty, 
were  absolutely  canceled  and  nullified.  The  Senate  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations  wrote  the  words  of  the  Scott  act  into  the 
treaty  when  it  had  it  under  consideration,  and  added  to  the 
treaty  which  had  been  negotiated  these  stringent  and  violative 
piovisions,  and  in  that  shape  it  was  advised  and  consented  to 
by  the  Senate.  Those  modifications  were  telegraphed  to  China, 
where  the  convention  was  being  considered;  the  treaty  broke 
down,  and  it  never  has  been  heard  of  since. 

Mr.  DOLPH.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  make  a sugges- 
tion? I do  not  think  the  amendments  made  by  the  Senate  in  the 
treaty  of  1888  were  at  all  material  or  that  China  ever  signified 
that  they  would  not  be  satisfactory  to  the  Chinese  Government. 
They  were  satisfactory  to  the  Chinese  minister  here  as  a matter 
of  fact.  I do  not  understand  that  the  treaty  of  1888  was  ever  re- 
jected by  the  Chinese  Government.  It  had  not  been  acted  upon 
at  the  time  the  Scott  act  was  passed,  and  of  course  it  would  not 
he  acted  upon  after  the  passage  of  that  act.  The  act  of  Septem- 
ber 13,  1888,  was  to  take  effect  only  when  the  Chinese  Govern- 
ment ratified  the  treaty  of  1888,  but  before  the  Chinese  Govern- 
ment had  acted  upon  it,  or  our  Government  was  notified  that 
they  had  rejected  or  disapproved  or  refused  to  ratify  the  treaty, 
the  Scott  act  approved  October  1, 1888,  was  passed,  and  of  course 
after  that  the  treaty  fell;  but  I think  it  failed  on  account  of  the 
Scott  act,  and  not  on  account  of  any  obnoxious  provisions  added 
to  the  treaty  of  1888. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  President,  I think  I speak  advisedly  upon 
this  subject.  A large  part  of  the  information  from  which  I have 
spoken  as  to  the  fate  of  the  negotiations  of  1888  was  derived  from 
some  remarks  made  by  the  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  Morgan]  , 
now  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  in  1892, 
in  this  body,  when  the  act  of  1892  was  under  consideration. 

In  that  state  of  things,  another  Presidential  canvass  super- 
vening, the  act  of  1892  was  passed,  of  which,  or  of  some  portions 
of  which,  the  pending  measure  is  an  amendment.  Now,  dis- 
tinctly stating  my  position  in  this  matter,  it  is  this,  and  such 
are  the  object  and  scopd  of  the  amendments  I have  sent  to  the 
desk:  I am  in  favor  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
of  1880.  1 wish  to  restore  to  operation  the  act  of  1884,  amend- 

atory of  the  act  of  1882,  and  I am  opposed,  U2Don  what  I con- 
ceive to  be  the  highest  considei-ations,  to  any  of  the  legislation 
which  has  been  enacted  since  that  time  and  which  is  now  oper- 
700 


6 


ative.  I am  especially  opposed  to  the  act  of  1892,  the  amendment 
to  which  is  now  before  us  for  consideration,  and  it  is  that  act 
and  its  practical  operations  to  which  I intend  to  direct  the 
greater  portion  of  my  remarks. 

Up  to  a certain  time,  namely,  up  to  the  time  when  the  obnox- 
ious legislation  to  which  I have  alluded  became  operative,  the 
policy  of  this  country  through  its  statutes  in  the  execution  of 
the  treaty  was  to  regulate,  control,  and  prevent  the  coming  into 
this  country  of  those  Chinese  who  were  not  entitled  to  come;  but, 
in  abrogation  of  the  treaty,  in  amendment  and  repeal  of  those 
statutes  enacted  to  carry  it  out,  that  purpose  has  been  enlarged 
so  that,  say  what  you  may  of  the  devices  and  pretexts  and  glosses 
to  which  this  legislation  has  been  subjected,  the  actual  object  is 
to  drive  from  this  country  by  a system  of  legislation,  which  is 
the  scandal  and  disgrace  of  our  time,  those  who  came  here  by 
our  invitation,  and  whose  right  to  remain  here  is  guarantied  not 
only  by  treaty  obligations,  but  by  statutes  efficacious  and  in  force 
up  to  a recent  time. 

The  act  of  1892,  the  most  stringent  aud  the  most  advanced 
legislation  to  that  end.  and  which  I shall  analyze  at  some  length 
hereafter,  with  all  of  its  prohibitory  and  severe  provisions,  its 
processes  without  law,  its  total  disregard  of  personal  security, 
liberty,  or  right,  has  been  declared  to  be  constitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  Against  that  decision  I 
have  no  argument  to  make.  It  is  the  declared  and  established 
law.  I shall  not  be  led  to  discuss  its  soundness,  for  no  discussion 
here  can  impair  its  validity.  It  is  declarative  of  the  powers  of 
this  Government  in  a field  in  which  it  has  not  trodden  for  nearly 
one  hundred  years.  I may  be  permitted  to  say  that  the  decision 
of  the  court  took  the  great  majority  of  the  profession  of  this 
country,  so  far  as  I can  learn,  by  surprise. 

But, 'Mr.  President,  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  simply  declares  the  law  and  the  limitations  of  the 
Constitution.  It  says  what  may  or  may  not  be  done.  That  tri- 
bunal outlines  no  policy,  and  its  conclusion  upon  the  validity  of 
a statute  is  not  even  a monition  to  Congress  as  to  the  proper 
method  of  exercising  its  political  and  administrative  powers 
within  their  unquestioned  limits.  That  court  has  decided  that 
there  resides  in  the  other  departments  of  the  Government  a 
power  vast,  ill  defined,  susceptible  of  abuse,  liable  to  be  per- 
verted to  purposes  of  passion.  For  that  very  reason  I call  for  a 
revision  of  the  statutes  by  which  that  political  and  administra- 
tive power  has  been  put  into  operation. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  substance  has  de- 
cided that,  so  far  as  the  Chinese  in  this  country  are  concerned, 
the  question  of  their  disposition,  rem  lining  here,  deportation, 
exile,  banishment,  punishment,  whatever  you  may  call  it,  is  en- 
tirely and  exclusively  a matter  of  political  administration;  that 
no  sanction  of  personal  right — such  personal  rights  as  are  enjoyed 
by  us — can  be  invoked  by  them  in  the  courts  for  their  protection. 

Formerly  there  was  a vague  and  general  idea  concerning  the 
execution  of  this  law,  that  somewhere,  somehow,  by  certiorari, 
writ  of  error,  habeas  corpus,  or  in  some  way,  rights  abused,  or 
rights  misused,  or  wrongs  perpetrated,  could  be  rectified  by  the 
courts  in  proceedings  under  this  statute.  But  that  is  not  to  be. 
Hence,  since  the  judiciary  has  closed  its  doors  to  this  class  of 
people,  especially  to  those  who  have  been  invited  to  come  here 
and  are  in  this  country  under  the  charter  and  letters-patent  of 
700 


7 


a treaty  of  ttie  United  States  with  their  Government,  if  we  wish 
to  get  rid  of  them  by  administrative  and  executive  procedure 
we  should  do  it  by  methods  warranted  by  humanity,  and  the 
more  so  because  the  power  which  has  been  vested  in  the  poMti- 
cal  department  of  this  Government  is  so  irresponsible  and  un- 
controllable. 

I wish  to  call  attention  to  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  May  5, 
1892,  and  of  the  amendment  now  pending  to  that  act  for  the  pur- 
pose of  emphasizing  in  a more  particular  way  the  objections 
which  I think  are  valid  against  the  expediency  of  this  legisla- 
lation.  My  objections,  in  my  opinion,  are  stronger  for  the  sim- 
ple reason  that  the  political  powers  granted  by  the  statute  have 
been  decided  to  be  absolutely  uncontrollable  by  the  judiciary, 
and  are  vested  entirely  in  the  unregulated  discretion  of  the  ex- 
ecutive officers  of  the  Government.  Take  the  second  section  of 
the  act  of  1892: 

That  any  Chinese  person  or  person  of  Chinese  descent,  when  convicted 
and  adjudged  under  any  of  said  laws  to  be  not  lawfully  entitled  to  be  or  re- 
main in  the  United  States,  shall  be  removed  from  the  United  States  to 
China — 

“ When  convicted  or  adjudged.”  Note  the  judicial  phraseol- 
ogy as  to  matters  which  have  been  held  not  to  be  judicial — 

unless  he  or  they  shall  make  it  appear  to  the  justice,  judge,  or  commis- 
sioner before  whom  he  or  they  are  tried  that  he  or  they  are  subjects  or  citi- 
zens of  some  other  country,  in  which  case  he  or  they  shall  be  removed  from 
the  United  States  to  such  country. 

Here  is  a man  brought  before  a judge,  magistrate,  or  commis- 
sioner. He  is  charged  with  the  offense  of  being  unlawfully  in 
this  country.  Every  presumption  with  which  the  common  law 
surrounds  an  accused  person,  that  he  is  innocent  until  he  is  proven 
guilty,  is  studiously  by  statute  taken  away.  He  must  make  it 
appear  to  the  magistrate  that  he  is  a citizen  of  another  country, 
in  which  case  he  shall  be  deported  to  that  country.  Then  notice 
what  follows: 

Provided,  That  in  any  case  where  such  other  country  of  which  such  Chi- 
nese person  shall  claim  to  be  a citizen  or  subject  shail  demand  any  tax  as  a 
condition  of  the  removal  of  such  person  to  that  country,  he  or  she  shall  be 
removed  to  China. 

Now,  I have  to  say  generally  in  respect  to  that  proviso  that  we 
have  undertaken  to  deport  Chinese  to  other  countries  than 
China,  with  which  we  have  treaty  stipulations,  giving  to  their 
citizens  the  right  to  come  and  go  and  live  here  upon  the  same 
terms  that  we  have  given  the  most  favored  nation.  In  case  a 
Chinese  happens  to  be  a citizen  of  another  country  than  China, 
we  have  undertaken  to  deport  him  to  that  country  of  which  he 
may  claim  and  prove  himself  to  be  a citizen.  In  the  anxiety  to 
get  rid  of  these  people  the  framers  of  the  legislation  of  1892, 
while  they  repudiated  our  treaty  obligations  with  China,  were 
not  careful  of  our  obligatious  to  other  countries.  Absolute  is 
the  provision  that  when  the  Chinese  is  convicted  and  adjudged 
to  be  unlawfully  here,  when  by  treaty  with  Great  Britain  he 
had  a right  to  be  here,  if  he  was  a subject  of  that  country,  he 
shall  be  deported  to  Great  Britain,  or  such  other  country  of  which 
he  may  be  a sub  ject,  raising  at  once  questions  between  us  and 
other  nations  with  whom  we  have  no  interest  or  desire  to  be  en- 
tangled in  any  such  controversy. 

But  the  proviso  adds  an  iniquity  to  that  to  which  I have  just 
called  the  attention  of  the  Senate.  It  provides  in  substance  that 
if  the  other  country  of  which  the  Chinese  has  established  him- 
700 


8 


self  to  be  a citizen  lays  any  tax  or  head  money  upon  him,  he  shall 
be  deported — wherey  Not  to  the  country  to  which  he  owes  alle- 
giance, but  he  shall  be  deported  to  China,  a realm  which  he  has 
abjured;  that  he  shall  be  banished  to  the  country  from  which  he 
originally  came.  What  will  be  the  effect?  Great  Britain  acquired 
Hongkong  in  1841.  It  is  an  island  off  the  coast  of  China,  and 
contains  about  25  square  miles.  It  has  about  220,000  people. 
Every  Chinese  born  in  Hongkong  since  the  acquisition  of  that 
island  by  the  British  Government  is  a subject  of  Great  Britain, 
and  it  is  said  (I  know  not  with  how  much  accuracy,  though  to  a 
certain  degree  it  must  be  true)  that  a large  part  of  the  Chinese 
immigration  to  the  United  States  has  come  from  Hongkong,  so 
that  in  this  respect  we  deal,  or  propose  to  deal,  not  only  with 
the  Empire  of  China,  but  with  Great  Britain  or  other  countries 
with  whom  Chinese  may  have,  and  doubtless  have,  assumed  the 
relations  of  citizenship. 

Passing  on  to  section  3: 

That  any  Chinese  person  or  person  of  Chinese  descent  arrested  under  the 
provision  of  this  act  or  the  acts  hereby  extended  shall  he  adjudged — 

Note  the  judicial  phraseology — 
to  be  unlawfully  within  the  United  States  unless  such  person  shall  establish, 
by  affirmative  proof,  to  the  satisfaction  of  such  justice,  judge,  or  commis- 
sioner, his  lawful  right  to  remain  in  the  United  States. 

Now,  that  measure  of  proof  applies  not  only  to  deportation  pro- 
ceedings but  to  criminal  proceedings,  strictly  defined  to  be  such 
in  the  body  of  the  act,  whereby  sentence  is  to  follow  judicial 
proceedings.  Whoever  heard,  whoever  saw,  in  any  other  legis- 
lation than  this,  that  a man  accused  of  that  which  is  in  substance 
a crime,  of  which  he  must  be  convicted  by  some  process  or  other, 
shall  be  adjudged  guilty  unless  he  shall  affirmatively  prove  by  a 
preponderance  of  testimony  sufficient  to  remove  the  legal  pi  e- 
sumption  of  guilt,  that  he  is  an  innocent  man?  There  is  nosuch 
law  elsewhere  in  Christendom,  and  it  would  disgrace  Morocco. 

Sec.  4.  That  any  such  Chinese  person  or  person  of  Chinese  descent  con- 
victed and  adjudged  to  be  not  lawfully  entitled  to  be  or  remain  inrhe  United 
States  shall  be  imprisoned  at  hard  labor  for  a period  of  not  exceeding  one 
year  and  thereafter  removed  from  the  United  States,  as  hereinbefore  pro- 
vided. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  The  Senator  is  aware,  I presume, 
that  that  section  has  been  declared  invalid.  That  section  has 
been  eliminated  from  the  act. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I am  carrying  out  my  argument  to  show  the 
animus  of  this  legislation.  The  animus  with  which  the  act  was 
drawn  was  that  under  section  3,  when  a Chinese  person  was  ac- 
cused he  must  prove  his  innocence,  and  if  he  did  not  prove  it  he 
should  be  imprisoned  for  one  year  at  hard  labor  and  afterwards 
be  deported  to  the  place  from  whence  he  came. 

Mr.  DOLPH.  Imprisoned  not  exceeding  one  year.  He  might 
not  be  imprisoned  for  an  hour. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Not  exceeding  one  year.  Section  5 provides: 

That  after  the  passage  of  this  act.  on  an  application  to  any  judge  or  court 
of  the  United  States  in  the  first  Instance  for  a writ  of  habeas  corpus,  by  a 
Chinese  person  seeking  to  land  in  the  United  States,  to  whom  that  privilege 
has  been  denied,  no  bail  shall  be  allowed,  and  such  application  shall  be  heard 
and  determined  promptly  without  unnecessary  delay.' 

Mr.  President,  we  have  all  been  brought  up  to  consider, 
whether  as  to  ourselves  to  the  manner  born,  or  as  to  aliens  or 
denizens,  that  the  great  shield  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was 
always  over  all.  So  dear  is  personal  liberty  in  our  political  con- 
700 


9 


•ceptions  that  the  distinction  of  the  rig-ht  to  that  writ  had  never 
been  drawn  as  against  an  alien  prior  to  this  legislation.  Here 
he  is  seized,  arrested,  detained. 

Mr.  DOLPH.  No;  that  is  while  still  aboard  ship. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  While  still  aboard  ship,  but  he  is  detained  there: 
he  can  not  get  off;  he  is  restrained  of  the  liberty  of  his  person; 
he  can  not  have  the  benefit  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  even  to 
enable  him  to  go  ashore  and  prepare  for  his  defense.  But  what 
is  the  use  of  particularizing  and  stigmatizing  in  detail  a depri- 
vation by  a statute  of  rights  so  comprehensive  and  disgraceful 
as  this  is? 

1 now  come  to  an  examination  of  section  6,  and  the  proposed 
amendment  under  present  consideration,  which  mainly  is  con- 
cerned with  the  substantial  leeiiactment  (with  some  few  imma- 
terial variations)  of  section  6 of  the  act  of  1892.  Bear  in  mind 
that  the  treaty  of  ISSO  had  provided  that  certain  laborers  who 
were  here  at  a certain  time  should  be  permitted  to  remain  in 
this  country;  that  its  whole  scope,  and  all  that  was  asked  then, 
was  to  restrict  the  further  in  (lux  of  immigrants  of  that  character. 
Bearing  all  that  in  mind,  let  us  consider  the  provision  of  the 
proposed  amendment.  It  is  nearly  identical  with  section  6 in 
the  statute  of  1892: 

Sec.  6.  And  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  all  Chinese  laborers  within  thellmits  of 
the  United  States,  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  who  were  en- 
titled to  remain  in  the  United  States 

Mr.  PLATT.  Who  are  entitled  to  remain? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  “Who  were  entitled  to  remain  in  the  United 
States  ” before  the  passage  of  the  act  to  which  this  is  an  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  PLATT.  Who  does  the  Senator  understand  were  entitled 
to  remain? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  enters  into  a branch  of  detail  I do  not  care 
to  be  questioned  about  just  now,  but  I merely  ask  the  attention 
of  the  Senate  to  the  general  fact  that  unblushingly  and  avowedly 
the  act  proposes  to  proceed  against  people  who  up  to  a certain 
time  were  entitled  to  remain  within  this  country.  It  shall  be 
the  duty  of  such  Chinese  laborers  “ to  apply  to  the  collector  of 
internal  revenue  of  their  respective  districts,  within  six  months 
after  the  passage  of  this  act,  for  a certificate  of  residence.” 

His  duty  is  to  apply  to  the  collector.  I pause  to  remark,  in 
criticism  of  that  particular  provision,  that  nowhere  within  the 
compass  of  this  amendment,  or  of  any  legislation  of  which  it  is 
amendatory,  is  it  made  the  duty  of  the  collector  to  give  the 
Chinese  person  a certificate.  At  the  very  beginning  of  this  pro-' 
ceeding  an  inferior  executive  officer  of  the  United  -States  is  to 
be  applied  to.  His  discretion  merely  is  to  be  applied  to.  His 
judgment  is  final.  There  is  no  appeal  in  case  of  his  refusal  to 
grant  a certificate,  however  the  Chinese  may  be  prepared  to 
show  clearly  his  right  to  be  here:  and  with  the  state  of  feeling 
in  those  parts  of  the  country  which  assert  themselves  to  be  most 
deeply  affected  and  injured  by  the  presence  of  this  population,  1 
ask,  taking  into  account  the  average  performances  of  human  na- 
ture, what  kind  of  a show  the  Chinese  is  going  to  have  with 
the  collector  to  whom  he  applies?  Suppose  he  does  apply.  “I 
will  not  grant  your  certificate.”  Then  he  passes,  abandoning  all 
hope,  under  all  of  the  penal  provisions  of  the  law,  and  can  not 
possibly  reinstate  himself. 

Mr.  GRAY.  I ask  the  Senator  from  Minnesota,  if  he  will  per- 
7l0 


10 


mitme,  whether,  notwithstanding  the  looseness  of  the  framings 
of  the  original  Geary  act,  so-called,  he  does  not  think  that  there 
is  an  implication  of  duty  arising  from  the  structure  of  the  section 
upon  the  co’ lector  to  give  the  certificate  when  it  is  applied  for? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  enough  for  my  purpose  to  say  that  I do  not 
believe  such  ii  discrjtion  ought  to  be  confided  to  the  collector. 

Mr.  GRAY.  I do  not  think  so  either.  I only  ask  the  Senator 
if  he  does  not  think  there  is  an  implication  of  duty. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Certainly  my  esteemed  friend  thinks  so;  but 
what  I am  talking  about  is  the  logic  il  consequence.  Supposing 
the  implied  duty  of  which  the  Se.nator  speaks  and  which  may 
exist  here  is  not  performed,  where  is  the  remedy  for  the  Chi- 
nese, however  clear  his  claim  may  be? 

Mr.  GRAY.  There  is  a remedy  of  mandamus,  I should  think, 
where  there  is  a duty  implied. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I am  talking  about  the  practical  working  of  this 
business.  Mandamus  can  not  control  or  overrule  the  exercise 
of  discretionary  power  by  any  public  officer.  I am  trying  to 
convince  the  Senate  that  this  is  a matter  which  ought  not  to  be 
precipitately  or  inconsiderately  decided;  and  that  this  whole 
question  ought  to  be  again  referred  to  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations  with  a view  that  some  legislation  adequate  to 
the  subject,  and  at  the  same  time  just,  can  be  formulated — 

and  any  Chinese  laborer,  within  the  limits  of  the  United  State.s,  who  shall 
neglect,  fail,  or  refuse  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  act  and  the  act 
to  which  this  is  an  amendment,  or  who,  after  the  expiration  of  said  six 
month-;,  shall  be  found  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  without 
such  certificate  of  residence,  shall  be  deemed  and  adjudged — 

Note  the  judicial  and  forensic  language  again — 

to  be  unlawfully  within  the  United  States,  and  may  be  arrested  by  any 
United  States  customs  oBficial— 

Whoever  he  may  be — 

collector  of  internal  revenue  or  his  deputies.  United  States  marshal  or  his 
deputies. 

Consider  for  a moment,  Mr.  President,  such  legislation  as  this, 
applicable  to  106,000  people,  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to 
personal  liberty  and  domicile  in  the  midst  of  a hostile  race,  by 
as  solemn  a treaty  as  this  Government  ever  concluded,  by  which 
they  are  turned  over  to  be  taken  bodily  in  a man-hunt  by  any 
one  of  the  officers  or  their  numerous  deputies,  of  the  character 
described  in  the  sentence  which  I have  just  read.  What  asource 
of  abuse!  What  a weapon  of  violence!  What  an  instrument  of 
'extortion  and  oppression  and  bribery! 

Any  wandering  deputy  marshal,  or  collector,  or  anybody  who 
can  be  called  an  official  in  the  United  States  customs  depart- 
ment anywhere  in  this  country,  can  lay  his  hand  upon  a human 
being  without  a warrant  or  precept.  No  court  surper  vises  him, 
no  controlling  authority  holds  the  reins  over  him.  It  is  a matter 
entirely  between  the  m in-hunter  and  his  victim.  If  he  lets  him 
go  for  a consideration  there  is  nobody  in  particular  to  call  him 
to  icco.mt. 

This,  be  it  ever  remembered,  is  not  a judicial  proceeding.  This 
is  the  exercise  of  political  power,  and  to  exercise  this  political 
power  we  propose  to  vest  in  a body  of  people  in  no  way  connected 
with  the  courts  (at  least  two-thirds  of  them  are  not),  a power 
which  if  it  were  invoked  in  Gre  it  B 'itain  to-day  in  regard  to 
r.ny  person,  subject,  or  denizen,  within  the  isl  ind,  would  shake 


11 


the  foundation  of  that  Government  so  that  it  would  topple  to  its 
fall. 

When  people  are  to  be  deprived  of  their  liberty,  when  they 
are  to  be  detained,  when  they  are  to  be  convicted,  when  they 
are  to  suffer  the  extreme  punishment  of  banishment,  and  that 
through  the  action  of  a judge,  as  in  this  case,  although  he  acts 
not  judicially  but  politically,  all  experience  shows,  and  all  civil- 
ized legislation  provides,  that  to  authorize  one  man  to  arrest  an- 
other he  ought  to  have  a warrant  for  that  arrest  and  detention. 
It  is  under  the  seal  of  the  court.  The  hand  of  the  court  is  upon 
its  officer.'  He  must  produce  his  man  before  the  judge,  or  magis- 
tra'e,  or  court  which  issues  the  warrant.  For  any  irregularity 
in  the  arrest  the  prisoner  can  make  complaint.  But  here  is  no 
warrant  at  all.  The  mere  fact  that  a man  is  a Chinese  author- 
izes any  one  of  these  deputies  or  officials  to  demand  his  certifi- 
cate, and  if  he  does  not  immediately  show  it,  to  lay  hands  upon 
him  and  dispose  of  him  in  the  manner  which  I shall  indicate. 

Mr.  PALMER.  Will  the  Senator  from  Minnesota  allow  me 
to  supplement  his  remark?  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  man 
should  even  be  a Chinese.  It  would  be  quite  sufficient  that  these 
irresponsible  officers  supposed  him  to  be  one. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  probably  true. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  Would  the  judge  deport  him  then? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Now,  after  the  kidnaping  proceeding  this  fol- 
lows: The  apprehended  man  is — 
to  be  taken  before  a United  States  judge. 

What  judge?  Where?  Of  the  district  where  the  man  is  seized? 
Naturally  so,  but  the  statute  does  not  say  so.  A Chinese  person 
seized  in  Oregon  can  be  taken  to  California  and  vice  versa,  or  he 
can  be  taken  to  the  city  of  New  York->- 

wbose  duty  it  shall  be  to  order  that  he  be  deported  from  the  United  States 
as  provided  in  this  act  and  in  the  act  to  which  this  is  an  amendment,  imless 
he  shall  establish  clearly— 

Note  the  burden  of  proof — 

to  the  satisfaction  of  said  judge,  that  by  reason  of  accident,  sickness,  or 
other  unavoidable  cause,  he  has  been  unable  to  procure  his  certificate,  and 
to  the  satisfaction  of  said  United  States  judge,  and  by  at  least  one  credible 
witness  other  than  Chinese,  that  he  was  a resident  of  the  United  States  on 
the  5th  of  May,  1892. 

I was  very  much  pleased  to  hear  the  criticisms  of  the  venera- 
ble Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  Palmer]  on  this  subject. 

Section  6 of  the  act  of  1892  provides  that  there  should  be  “one 
credible  white  witness.”  The  thing  has  been  transformed  but 
has  not  been  materially  changed  in  the  eye  of  justice  in  the 
amendment  which  I hold  in  my  hand.  He  must  establish  it — 

By  at  least  one  credible  witness  other  than  Chinese. 

Little  by  little  all  civilized  nations  have  adopted  an  axiom- 
atic law  of  evidence  that  the  testimony  of  any  man  can  be 
heard  when  it  is  given  under  the  sanctions  and  ceremonies  of 
his  religion,  or  upon  his  conscience  if  he  has  no  religious  belief 
respecting  the  sanctity  of  an  oath.  All  experience,  all  philo- 
sophic jurisprudence  here  where  the  common  law  obtains,  and 
elsewhere  in  countries  where  the  civil  law  prevails,  has  settled 
down  upon  the  conclusion  that  the  objections  to  a witness  go 
only  to  his  credibility.  All  systems  of  law  will  hear  his  story; 
will  weigh  the  facts  and  circumst  inces;  will  confront  him  with 
other  witnesses;  will  measure  his  story  by  other  competent  evi- 
dence. But  under  this  statute  the  Chinese  can  not  be  heard 
TOO 


12 


for  the  purpose  of  establishing  his  most  inestimable  rights.  He 
can  not  establish  by  the  testimony  of  one  Chinese  witness,  or 
ten  or  twenty  Chinese  witnesses,  that  he  has  complied  or  is 
entitled  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  law. 

Now,  it  may  be,  it  naturally  would  be  among  this  peculiar  peo- 
ple, that  the  only  sources  of  proof  which  mustthus  be  furnished 
clearly  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  judge  are  among  their  own  peo- 
ple. They  are  not  to  be  heard  for  the  purpose  of  plenary  proof, 
or  heard  at  all.  The  accused  may  have  drifted  to  New  York  or 
to  St.  Paul,  having  a companion  there  who  has  known  him, 
when  there  is  not  a white  man  within  2,000  or  4,000  miles  who 
could  give  the  least  attestation  concerning  him. 

He  is  seized  in  New  York  or  in  St.  Paul;  he  is  taken  before  a 
United  States  judge,  brought  there  without  a warrant,  by  an 
underling  without  any  authority  except  his  official  connection 
with  another  department  than  that  concerned  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice;  and  in  such  case  as  that  which  I have  sup- 
posed the  Chinese  is  utterly  remediless  by  the  simple  automatic 
operation  of  a law,  and  he  immediately  goes  under  the  yoke  of 
the  penal  provisions  of  this  statute. 

And  if  upon  the  hearing  it  shall  appear  that  he  is  so  entitled  to  a certifi- 
cate, it  shall  be  granted  upon  his  paying  the  cost. 

That  is  a touch  of  meanness  which  speaks  for  itself. 

Should  it  appear  that  said  Chinaman  had  procured  a certificate,  which  has 
been  lost  or  destroyed 

Mr.  PLATT.  What  cost? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  does  not  say  what  cost.  The  question  forcibly 
illustrates  the  powers  of  oppression  of  which  this  act  is  suscep- 
tible. 

Now,  about  this  Chinese  testimony,  which  I was  about  to  de- 
part from  without  suggesting  another  consideration  which  had 
occurred  to  me.  Here  is  a Chinese  person  before  a judge,  de- 
prived perchance  of  the  only  testimony  by  which  he  can  estab- 
lish his  I’ight.  The  scene  is  a United  States  court  room.  The 
proceedings  of  a criminal  trial  are  suspended  for  a moment  to 
enable  the  judge  to  cease  to  be  a judge  and  to  perform  this 
act  of  political  administration.  It  is  over.  The  trial  of  a 
person,  white  man  or  Chinese,  accused  of  felony  against  a law 
of  the  United  States  is  resumed,  and  this  same  Chinese,  whose 
testimony  and  the  bystanders  of  his  nationality  whose  testi- 
mony has  been  rejected  by  the  judge  in  his  capacity  of  a po- 
litical administrator  by  the  force  of  this  statute,  happen  to 
know  all  about  the  crime  of  the  culprit  who  is  upon  trial.  The 
United  States  law  puts  these  same  Chinese  witnesses  into  the 
box  to  prove  the  allegation  of  an  indictment  in  a trial  against  a 
white  man.  The  testimony  is  received,  and  if  it  is  credible,  con- 
viction and  sentence  of  imprisonment,  or  perhaps  of  death,  fol- 
low. Who  will  say  that  this  statute  was  not  designed  for  op- 
pression, that  it  was  not  written  by  a cunning  hand  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  possible  and  lawful  a perverted  and  cruel  use  of 
political  power.  It  takes  a, man  cunningly  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  protection  of  the  courts,  and  turns  him  over  to  the  tender 
mercies  of  what  little  he  can  get  out  of  such  provisions  as  this: 

He  shall  be  detained  and  judgment  suspended  a reasonable  time  to  enable 
him  to  procure  a duplicate  from  the  officer  granting  it,  and  in  such  cases  the 
cost  of  said  arrest  and  trial  shall  be  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

And  any  Chinese  person,  other  than  a Chinese  iaborer.  having  a right  to 
be  and  remain  in  the  United  States,  desiring  such  certificate  as  evidence  of 
such  right,  may  apply  for  and  receive  the  same  without  charge. 

700 


13 


Then  follows  section  2,  containing  certain  definitions  as  to  la- 
borers. I do  not  know  that  I have  any  particular  fault  with  that 
definition,  but  as  to  merchants  I will  read: 

The  term  “ merchant,”  as  employed  herein  and  In  the  acts  of  which  this  is 
amendatory,  shall  have  the  following  meaning  and  none  other;  A merchant 
is  a person  engaged  in  huying  and  selling  merchandise,  at  a fixed  place  of 
business,  which  business  is  conducted  in  his  name,  and  who  during  the  time 
he  claims  to  be  engaged  as  a merchant,  does  not  engage  in  the  performance 
of  any  manual  labor,  except  such  as  is  necessary  in  the  conduct  of  his  busi- 
ness as  such  merchant. 

One  would  naturally  suppose  that  the  vocation  of  a man  who  had 
been  a merchant  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  is  something 
which  the  community  in  which  he  deals  could  testify  to;  but 
there  is  one  particular  provision  in  this  definition  concerning 
which  I speak  with  considerable  diffidence,  namely,  thathe  must 
do  business  in  his  own  name.  My  reading  has  informed  me,  and 
conversation  has  instructed  me,  that  of  ail  people  in  the  world 
the  Chinese  are  an  associative  people  in  their  business  operations; 
that  they  have  carried  the  ideas  of  companies  and  corporations 
and  associations  to  a degree  of  refinement  and  perfection  to  which 
we  have  not  approached,  and  yet  under  this  provision,  as  to  all 
the  men  who  may  belong  to  an  association  of  that  character  who 
have  pooled  their  stocks,  capital,  and  profits  as  mercha.nts  and  im- 
porters, invited  to  this  country  by  treaty  and  confirmed  by  statute, 
they  are  absolutely  deprived  of  the  right  of  enjoying  those  busi- 
ness relations  and  can  not  exempt  themselves  from  the  punitory 
and  pursuing  clauses  of  this  act,  which  follows  them  into  every 
portion  of  this  land  and  makes  them  liable  to  have  the  hand  of 
numerous  officials  placed  upon  them  without  precept,  warrant, 
or  authority  of  law  except  as  derived  from  this  statute. 

Mr.  PLA.TT.  He  can  not  cut  his  own  wood. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  Senator  from  Connecticut  remarks  that  he 
can  not  cut  his  own  wood  except  it  is  necessary  in  the  conduct 
of  his  business  as  such  merchant. 

Where  an  application  is  made  by  a Chinaman  for  entrance  into  the  United 
States  on  the  ground  that  he  was  formerly  engaged  in  this  country  as  a 
merchant,  he  shall  establish  by  the  testimony  of  two  credible  witnesses 
other  than  Chinese  the  fact  that  he  conducted  such  business  as  hereinbe- 
fore defined  for  at  least  one  year  before  his  departure  from  the  United 
States,  and  that  during  such  year  he  was  not  engaged  in  the  performance 
of  any  manual  labor,  except  such  as  was  necessary  in  the  conduct  of  his 
business  as  such  merchant,  and  in  default  of  such  proof  shall  be  refused 
landing. 

This  whole  proposed  law  is  zx  post  facto,  if  that  term  can  be 
applied  to  a proceeding  which  is"  not  judicial,  but  political  and 
administrative.  Penalties  are  enacted  which  had  no  existence 
whatever  in  common  Law,  statute  law.  or  in  legal  contemplationi 
of  any  kind,  until  the  act  of  1892  called  them  into  being,  and  they 
deprive  the  Chinese  of  a legal  status  which  was  perfectly  unas- 
sailable before  those  penalties  were  enacted. 

How  is  this  class  of  offenses  contrived  and  created  under  the- 
general  right  of  the  Government  to  say  what  it  shall  do  with 
aliens  in  its  midst,  concerning  which  the  Supreme  Court  has  set- 
tled the  doctrine  for  the  present,  at  least?  A man  is  required 
to  do  something  which  he  was  never  required  to  do  before,  tO' 
register,  to  take  out  a certificate.  He  does  not  do  it.  His  re- 
fusal creates  the  crime.  Itcreates  the  crime,  and  the  crime  pro- 
duces the  penalty. 

I find  it  hard  to  use  language  accurately  here;  but  after  all 
has  been  said  and  done  it  results  that  this  crime  and  this  pen- 
alty are  not  justiciable  matters;  they  are  matters  of  political  and 
700 


14 


executive  concern.  After  the  studious  use  of  judicial  and  fo- 
rensic language  thoughout  this  statute,  and  the  invocation  into 
this  arena  (for  it  is  not  a forum)  of  United  States  judges  for  its 
execution,  we  are  told,  and  told  conclusively  by  the  Supreme 
Courtof  theUnited  States,  that  it  is  not  a judicial,  is  nota  crim- 
inal, is  not  a penal  proceeding  at  all,  but  that  all  these  conse- 
quences, from  arrest  down  to  conviction  and  execution  of  the  sen- 
tence, are  purely  matters  of  political  administration. 

Such  order  of  deportation  shall  be  executed  by  the  United  States  marshal 
of  the  district  within  which  such  order  is  made,  and  he  shall  execute  the 
same  with  all  convenient  dispatch : and  pending  the  execution  of  such  order 
such  Chinese  person  shall  remain  in  the  custody  of  the  United  States  mar- 
shal, and  shall  not  be  admitted  to  bail. 

I was  going  to  say  he  might  want  to  appeal.  He  can  not  ap- 
peal. The  proceeding  is  not  judicial.  It  is  political  and  admin- 
istrative. He  might  want  to  give  bail,  but  he  can  not  do  it. 
That  is  cut  off.  Bail  is  judicial.  Political  administration  knows 
it  not.  Even  while  invoking  the  interposition  of  the  superior 
officers  of  the  Treasury  or  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
the  Chinese  merchant  who  has  come  to  this  country  must  be  de- 
tained; he  can  not  be  admitted  to  bail. 

Mr.  GRAY.  He  can  have  a writ  of  habeas  corpus,  though. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I am  not  so  certain  about  anything  good  in  this 
act.  I should  want  to  examine  it  closely  before  I concede  even 
that  point  to  a gentleman  so  frank  as  my  friend  from  Delaware. 

Mr.  GRAY.  I am  trying  to  find  something  good  in  it. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  provision  of  the  bill  is: 

The  certificate  herein  provided  for  shall  contain  the  photograph  of  the  ap- 
plicant, together  with  his  name,  local  residence,  and  occupation,  and  a copy 
of  such  certificate,  with  a duplicate  of  such  photograph  attached,  shall  be 
filed  in  the  office  of  the  United  States  collector  of  internal  revenue  of  the 
district  in  which  such  Chinaman  makes  application. 

Such  photographs  in  duplicate  shall  be  furnished  by  each  applicant  in 
such  form  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 

That  is  a matter  of  detail.  I do  not  think  it  particular  oppres- 
sive. I have  a repugnance  to  calling  upon  any  man  within  the 
protection  of  the  law  for  his  photograph  to  be  filed  away  as  a 
basis  for  a possible  criminal  prosecution  or  even  for  his  protec- 
tion. We  call  such  collections  of  photographs  in  civilized  and 
judicial  life  by  a particular  name. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  They  were  at  the  World's  Pair. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  I have  no  doubt.  We  invited  the  Chinese 
to  the  World’s  Pair.  China  came  with  the  meekness  she  has 
always  shown,  even  when  we  tried  to  abrogate  the  treaty,  and 
in  the  face  of  all  this  scandalous  legislation  she  shamed  us  by  a 
magnificent  exhibition. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  They  had  to  have  their  photographs,  though. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I do  not  recollect  any  statute  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  It  was  a regulation. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I do  not  recollect  any  statute  of  the  United  States 
to  that  effect. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  There  is  no  statute. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Now,  Mr.  President,  from  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  respecting  the  action  of  the 
judge  in  executing  this  statute,  it  plainly  follows  that  such  action 
by  him  is  not  judicial  but  is  political  and  administrative.  He 
does  not  proceed  upon  precept,  complaint,  indictm3nt,  or  by 
jury,  or  in  court.  No  judicial  record  is  made  of  his  action.  _ A 
United  States  judge  is  attempted  to  be  transformed  into  a politi- 
cal, executive,  administrative  officer.  He  is  translated  to  a sep- 
700 


15 


^arate  department  of  tlie  Government.  If  I were  aUnited  States 
judge  I would  say  ‘ ‘ These  duties  which  you  have  attempted  to  im- 
pose upon  me  are  not  judicial,  and  I shall  not  perform  them.” 
This  Government  has  no  power  or  authority  by  statute  to  im- 
pose duties  of  that  character  upon  a judge  without  his  consent. 
I would  rather  have  been  one  of  those  French  officials  who  issued 
lettres  de  cachet  under  Louis  XIV.  I would  rather  have  been  one 
•of  those  self-constituted  judges  who  sat  at  the  entrance  of  the 
prisons  during  the  massacres  of  the  French  Revolution  and  ad- 
judged the  emancipated  captive  to  life  or  death  as  they  chose. 
My  friend,  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  HawleyJ,  refers 
me  to  the  fugitive-slave  law;  but  there  was  judicial  process,  there 
was  warrant,  there  was  habeas  corpus,  there  was  a court  and  a 
judge  acting  judicially.  The  iniquity  of  that  law  was  that  there 
was  no  trial  by  jury,  and  it  convulsed  the  conscience  of  this  coun- 
try. How  did  .Judge  Lacombe,  the  United  States  circuit  judge  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  dispose  of  a case  of  this  kind  under  the 
act  of  1892?  He  performed  the  administrative  and  political  du- 
ties of  his  judicial  office,  but  finding  that,  owing  to  the  imperfec- 
tions of  the  act  of  1892,  no  particular  officer  was  authorized  to 
deport  the  Chinese  person  and  no  funds  provided  for  this  pur- 
pose, he  Issued  an  order,  ironical,  though  perhaps  not  so  intended, 
(I  think  1 can  state  its  substance  correctly),  that  this  Chinese 
■can  go;  he  is  set  at  large,  to  be  deported  when  the  United  States 
furnishes  the  instrumentality  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  President,  it  was  nearly  one  hundred  years  ago  when  the 
only  precedent  for  this  legislation  found  a place  on  our  statute 
books.  During  the  Administration  of  John  Adams,  and  in  the 
year  1798,  three  alien  acts  were  passed,  the  material  part  of 
which  was  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  given  the 
power  to  deport  any  alien  who  it  could  be  reasonably  appre- 
hended was  guilty,  or  intended  to  be  guilty,  of  treasonable  prac- 
tices or  was  undesirable  as  a denizen.  It  was  a war  measure, 
and  nobody  attempted  to  justify  it  by  any  other  pretext.  It  was 
■designed  for  ‘‘war  in  procinct,”  to  use  the  words  of  Milton.  The 
frigates  of  the  United  States  had  been  engaged  in  battle  with 
the  frigates  of  the  French  Directory  in  the  West  Indian  waters, 
and  the  privateers  of  Prance,  under  letters  of  marque  and  repri- 
sal, were  carrying  American  cargoes  into  ports  for  condemnation 
prize.  Three  of  our  envoys  who  had  been  at  Paris  in  the  endeavor 
to  adjust  our  very  difficult  relations  with  that  peculiar  govern- 
ment, had  been  subjected  to  importunities  for  money  as  a bribe 
by  emmissaries  of  Barras,  the  voluptuary,  and  of  Talleyrand,  that 
cynical  and  diplomatic  peculator,  and  they  had  returned  to  this 
country.  The  people  rose  in  indignation, 'and  Congress  granted 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States  the  power  conferred  by  the 
alien  acts  of  1798.  What  was  the  result?  The  nation  rose  in 
protest  against  the  statute.  It  swept  the  Republican  party  (so 
called)  of  that  day  from  power,  and  it  gave  to  their  opponents 
an  uninterrupted  ascendancy  for  over  twenty  years. 

In  vain  John  Adams,  from  his  place  as  President,  and  from 
his  retirement,  protested  and  proclaimed  that  the  statute  was 
justifiable  as  a war  measure,  and  justifiable  on  that  ground  alone. 
It  produced  opinions  which  have  been  cardinal  as  doctrines  of 
constitutional  law  for  many  of  our  most  advanced  thinkers  and 
statesmen;  and  I shall  beg  permission  to  read  what  .James  Mad- 
ison said.  It  is  refreshing  to  hear  how  clearly  his  voice  speaks, 
.as  if  attuned  to  d \j,  from  across  the  interval  of  nearly  a hundred 
700 


IG 


years,  respecting  tliis  act,  designed  as  a measure  of  protectioa 
at  thai  time.  Mr.  Madison  wrote: 

With  respect  to  alien  enemies,  no  doubt  has  been  intimated  as  to  the  Fed- 
eral authority  over  them;  the  Constitution  having  expressly  delegated  to 
Congress  the  power  to  declare  war  against  any  nation,  and,  of  course,  to 
treat  it  and  all  its  members  as  enemies.  With  respect  to  aliens  who  are  not 
enemies,  but  members  of  nations  in  peace  and  amity  with  the  United  States, 
the  power  assumed  by  the  act  of  Congress  is  denied  to  be  constitutional; 
and  it  is  accordingly  against  this  act  that  the  protest  of  the  General  Assembly 
is  expressly  and  exclusively  directed.  (Ibid..  .ISI). 

Were  it  admitted,  as  is  contended,  that  the  '•  actconcerning  aliens  ” hasfor 
its  object,  not  a penal,  but  a preventive  justice,  it  would  still  remain  to  be 
proved  that  it  comes  within  the  constitutional  power  of  the  Federal  legisla- 
ture; and.  if  within  its  power,  that  the  legislature  has  exercised  it  in  a con- 
stitutional manner.  * * * But  it  can  never  be  admitted  that  the  removal 
of  aliens,  authorized  by  the  act,  is  to  be  considered,  not  as  punishment  for 
an  offense,  but  as  a measure  of  precuation  and  prevention. 

It  the  banishment  of  an  alien  from  a country  into  which  he  has  been  in- 
vited as  the  asylum  most  auspicious  to  his  happiness— a country  where  he 
may  have  formed  the  most  tender  connections;  where  he  may  have  invested 
his  entire  property,  and  acquired  property  of  the  real  and  permanent  as  well 
as  the  movable  and  temporary  kind;  where  he  enjoys,  under  the  laws,  a 
greater  share  of  the  blessings  of  personal  security  and  personal  liberty  than 
he  can  elsewhere  hope  lor;  * * * if  a banishment  of  this  sort  be  not  a 
punishment,  and  among  the  severest  of  punishments,  it  would  be  difficult 
to  imagine  a doom  to  which  the  name  can  be  applied.  And,  if  it  be  a pun- 
ishment, it  will  remain  to  be  inquired  whether  it  can  be  constitutionally  in- 
flicted, on  mere  suspicion,  by  the  single  will  of  the  executive  magistrate,  on 
persons  convicted  of  no  personal  offense  against  the  laws  of  the  land,  nor 
involved  in  any  offense  against  the  law  of  nations,  charged  on  the  foreign 
state  of  which  they  are  members.  (Ibid.  5,%.) 

* * * It  does  not  follow,  because  aliens  are  not  parties  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, as  citizens  are  parties  to  it,  that,  whilst  they  actually  conform  to  it, 
they  have  no  right  to  its  protection.  Aliens  are  not  more  parties  to  the  laws 
than  they  are  parties  to  the  Constitution.  Yet  it  will  not  be  disputed  that  as 
they  owe  on  one  hand  a temporary  obedience  they  are  entitled  in  return 
to  their  protection  and  advantage.  If  aliens  had  no  rights  under  the  Con- 
stitution, they  might  not  only  be  banished,  but  even  capitally  punished 
without  a jury  or  the  other  incidents  to  a fair  trial.  But  so  far  has  a contrary 
principle  been  carried  in  every  part  of  the  United  States,  that  except  on 
charges  of  treason  an  alien  has,  besides  all  the  common  privileges,  the  spe- 
cial one  of  being  tried  by  a jury  of  which  one-half  may  be  also  aliens. 

It  is  said,  ffirther,  that,  by  the  law  and  practice  of  nations,  aliens  may  be 
removed,  at  discretion,  for  offenses  against  the  law  of  nations ; that  Con- 
gress are  authorized  to  define  and  punish  such  offenses;  and  that  to  be 
dangerous  to  the  peace  of  society  is,  in  aliens,  one  of  those  offenses. 

The  distinction  between  alien  enemies  and  alien  friends  is  a clear  and  con- 
clusive answer  to  this  argument.  Alien  enemies  are  under  the  law  of  na- 
tions, and  liable  to  be  punished  for  offenses  against  it.  Alien  friends,  except 
in  the  single  case  of  public  ministers,  are  under  the  municipal  law,  and  must 
be  tried  and  punished  according  to  that  law  only.  (Ibid.,  556.) 

But  I need  not  read  further. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  it  may  be  said  that  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  has  overruled  some  of  the  constitutional  posi- 
tions thus  taken  by  Mr.  Madison;  but  if  it  has,  it  has  simply  de- 
fined our  powers;  it  has  not  extended  them.  Because  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States  has  said  that  there  is  a region 
of  power  limitless  in  extent  open  tons,  we  are  not  bound  to  enter 
it.  All  things  may  be  lawful  to  us,  but  all  things  are  not  expe- 
dient. Therefore  I say,  inasmuch  as  this  matter  is  not  judicial, 
that  if  we  are  to  proceed  at  all  under  this  our  political,  admin- 
istrative, and  executive  power  to  use  these  terrible  instrumen- 
talities of  abuse  by  irresponsible  persons,  which  this  law  so 
amply  confers  upon  them,  such  instrumentalities  should  be  regu- 
lated by  a statute  bringing  them  within  and  under  judicial  con- 
trol. 

The  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  in  no  event  and  under  no 
existing  legislation  can  the  Chinese  at  any  stage  in  the  proceed- 
ing, whether  initiative  or  as  they  go  on  or  finally,  be  brought  within 
700 


17 


the  protection  of  the  judiciary.  I have  no  doubt  that  it  was  the 
general  opinion  of  the  profession  when  the  act  of  1892  was  passed 
that  somewhere  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings  the  judiciary 
could  lawfully  intervene,  as  it  now  seems  it  can  not.  Hence  I am 
aijjcious  to  see  this  legislation  changed  in  some  way  so  that  if  im- 
migration from  China  to  this  country  is  to  cease  (and  I confess  it 
seems  to  me  very  desirable  that  it  shall)  this  country  shall  not 
scandalize  and  disgrace  itself  by  such  political,  arbitrary,  and 
administrative  processes  as  this  legislation  has  been  held  to  war- 
rant. 

If  a Chinese  can  be  deported,  any  other  aliens  can  he  deported, 
coming  here  under  the  sanction  of  whatever  treaty,  however 
liberal.  The  country  was  greatly  excited  two  years  ago  by  the 
performances  of  the  Mafia  at  New  Orleans,  and  it  was  charged 
and  believed  that  a secret  society  dedicated  to  assassination  was  in 
our  midst.  Its  members  were  aliens.  Nobody  proposed  to  de- 
port them.  Nobody  has  ever  proposed  to  deport  the  Italian  la- 
borers because,  like  the  Chinese,  they  come  here  expecting  to 
return  home.  They  take  their  wages  back  with  them;  they  do 
not  pretend  to  assimilate  with  our  people. 

Mr.  GRAY.  We  do  not  want  the  Chinese  to  assimilate. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Nobody  does;  and  we  do  not  want  that  kind  of 
Italians  to  assimilate. 

Mr.  President,  if  the  Chinese  can  be  made  amenable  to  such 
discipline  as  this  by  refusing  to  register,  they  can  be  made 
amenable  for  any  other  refusal  that  may  result  from  an  astutely 
framed  statute.  This  being  a political  m atter,  a matter  of  ad- 
ministration, the  United  States  can  pass  a law  that  any  China- 
man who  refuses  to  conform  to  the  ordinances  of  San  Francisco 
shall  be  deported,  or  that  any  Chinese  person  over  45  years  of 
age  shall  be  deported.  There  is  no  limitation;  the  power  of  this 
Government  is  absolute  over  these  people  politically  and  ad- 
ministratively, because  the  law  is  a justification  unto  itself  and 
can  not  be  judicially  executed. 

Again,  if  you  can  proceed,  under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  against  all  the  Chinese  in  this  country,  you  can  proceed, 
as  this  act  does,  in  some  respects,  against  a certain  class.  If  you 
can  do  that,  you  can  proceed  against  one  Chinese  by  special  leg- 
islation of  this  character.  You  can  enact  that  certain  men, 
supposed  to  be  members  of  the  Six  Companies,  shall  be  deported. 
If  any  one  should  establish  a Chinese  newspaper  in  this  coun- 
try. and  it  was  not  agreeable,  you  can  enact  that  any  man  estab- 
lishing and  editing  a Chinese  newspaper  shall  be  deported;  or 
any  other  act  or  omission,  however  innocent,  however  indif- 
ferent in  the  general  current  of  political  or  social  concerns,  can 
be  made  the  standard,  and,  the  law  being  a justification  unto 
itself,  and  the  merest  instrumentality  of  the  executive  power  of 
the  Government,  the  Chinese  against  whom  the  blow  is  directed 
can  be  deported. 

Mr.  GRAY.  May  I ask  the  Senator  from  Minnesota  whether 
he  thinks  that  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  late 
case  in  which  tl>ey  were  called  upon  to  deliver  an  opinion  goes 
to  the  extent  which  he  has  described? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I think  it  does. 

Mr.  GRAY.  In  asserting  the  power  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I think  it  does.  There  were  three  writs  of 
habeas  corpus,  presenting  nearly  every  phase  of  the  question,  it 
seems  to  me. 

700 2 


18 


Mr.  GRAY.  I agree  with  the  Senator  from  Minnesota  that 
the  obligations  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  rest  just 
as  heavily  upon  us  as  Senators  as  they  do  upon  the  Supreme 
Court;  that  the  Supreme  Court  may  mark  out  the  area  into  which 
legislative  power  may  extend,  in  their  opinion,  but  it  does  not 
T-elieve  the  judgment  of  an  individual  Senator  from  the  duty  of 
deciding  for  himself  in  any  given  case  as  to  what  the  Constitu- 
tion means. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  Senator  from  Delaware  has  expressed  my 
opinion  in  the  most  precise  and  apt  manner.  That  is  precisely 
my  view,  and  upon  that  I stand,  although  I differ  from  the  Sen- 
ator in  the  argument  I am  making  against  this  whole  body  of 
legislation. 

More  than  that  can  be  done.  As  I said,  if  all  can  be  deported, 
classes  can,  a dozen  can.  one  can.  Unquestionably  a statute  could 
be  passed  ordering  the  deportation  under  this  decision  of  every 
Chinese  who,  after  a period  of  six  months,  should  be  found  liv- 
ing within  a city  of  (1,000  people,  or  within  the  city  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, which  has  been  the  most  complaining,  and  perhaps  justly 
so,  upon  this  question.  The  complaint  is  not,  as  I understand 
it,  that  the  Chinese  through  the  country,  in  the  orange  groves, 
the  vineyards,  and  wheat  fields  and  mines  are  an  unmixed  evil, 
but  it  is  their  conglomeration  in  the  great  city  of  the  coast,  at 
the  Golden  Gate,  that  is  objected  to. 

We  might  under  the  compendious  and  universal  power  which 
the  Supreme  Court  has  confirmed  in  Congress,  pass  an  act  that 
all  Chinese  found  living  in  San  Francisco  shall  be  subject  to  de- 
portation. There  would  be  sense  and  humanity  in  that,  if  con- 
trolled by  judicial  processes.  It  would  drive  that  idle  class  back 
home  or  out  into  the  surrounding  country,  where,  I am  informed, 
laborers  of  that  class  are  much  to  be  desired  and  are  not  too  plen- 
tiful. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  The  Senator  is  mistaken  in  that 
regard. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  President,  there  is  no  nation  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe,  however  feeble,  that  we  would  ever  have  en- 
acted this  legislation  against,  however  undesirable  their  labor- 
ing people  as  immigrants.  Our  conscience  would  not  have  per- 
mitted it,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fear  of  reprisal  or  retribution 
from  the  other  nation.  We  have  a general  idea,  unhappily  too 
prevalent,  that  we  need  not  deal  with  the  Chinese  upon  the  same 
footing  of  equal  binding  force  and  obligation,  to  say  nothing  of 
equality  of  right,  that  we  deal  with  other  people.  Yet.  Mr. 
President,  we  can  not  im.agine  that  a nation  like  China  is  going 
to  rest  forever  quietly  under  these  inflictions.  She  has  protested 
against  this  legislation  from  the  beginning. 

Suppose  she  should  treat  our  missionaries,  those  Christian 
men  and  women  who  have  erected  the  cross  of  the  Redeemer 
throughout  that  Empire,  as  we  have  treated  and  propose  to  treat 
her  subjects  in  this  country.  The  voice  of  the  entire  American 
people  would  be  for  war. 

China  is  the  most  ancient  empire  in  the  wofld.  She  contains 
one-fifth  of  the  human  race.  She  was  in  her  prime  when  the 
phalanx  of  the  Macedonian  stood  upon  the  banks  of  the  Indus, 
and  she  saw  the  Roman  Empire  fade  like  an  “insubstantial 
pageant’’  and  “leave  not  a rack  behind.”  And  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  she  will  survive  the  most  stable  governments  of 
to-day  as  mere  ephemera  in  the  experience  of  her  existence. 

700 


19 


Yet,  old  and  colossal  and  impenetrable  as  she  has  hitherto  been, 
that  vast  reservoir  of  wealth,  that  swarming  hive  of  population 
has,  since  the  opium  war,  been  slowly  yielding  to  the  advances 
of  civilization  and  throwing  open  that  great  mai’ket  to  the  world. 
Yet  we,  perhaps  from  passion,  perhaps  in  part  to  carry  out  an 
ill-founded  desire,  are  jeopardizing  that  commerce  for  which 
not  only  there,  but  elsewhere,  we  have  been  looking  intently 
for  many  years,  trying  to  build  up  our  American  shipping  and 
then  to  reestablish  and  extend  our  commercial  relations  with  all 
the  countries  of  the  world. 

Can  anyone  suppose  that,  with  legislation  of  this  character, 
enforced  in  this  way,  the  American  merchant  or  the  Ameri- 
can marine  are  to  have  eventually  their  share  in  that  immense 
and  rapidly  growing  commerce? 

Great  Britain  has  no  trouble  of  that  kind.  She  enacts  no  laws 
of  this  character  against  the  Chinese.  They  go  up  into  British 
North  America  and  settle  there,  subject  only  to  head  money.  I 
do  not  know  that  they  have  enacted  any  hostile  laws,  though 
I think  Australia  has. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  All  countries  have,  except  the  Fiji 
Islands. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I say  that  the  Dominion  of  Canada  has  not  en- 
acted exclusion  laws  against  the  Chinese.  Is  it  not  worth  while 
to  consider  whether  means  can  not  be  adopted  to  preserve  a good 
understanding  between  us  and  the  Chinese  Empire,  complaisant 
and  yielding  as  it  has  always  been  on  this  subject  of  immigra- 
tion. China  does  not  want  its  people  to  come  here.  It  disap- 
proves it.  To  our  objections  to  their  coming  among  us,  the 
Chinese  Empire  has  always  responded  according  to  our  desire. 
As  my  friend,  the  junior  Senator  from  California  [Mr.  Perkins], 
said  in  his  very  interesting  speech  of  yesterday,  their  bones 
are  not  even  permitted  to  remain  here.  They  are  sent  back. 

What  is  that  commerce?  In  1891  the  imports  into  China,  re- 
duced as'  nearly  as  I can  reduce  them  to  our  money,  amounted  to 
$167, .500, 000,  and  the  exports  were  $101,000,000  in  round  num- 
bers. I mean  from  all  over  the  globe.  Of  this  Great  Britain 
had  by  far  the  largest  part,  but  the  authority  which  I consulted 
states  that  the  United  States  comes  next.  It  is  a growing  com- 
merce. The  needs  of  that  innumerable  horde  of  people,  when 
they  get  to  needing  what  we  have  to  give  them,  will  increase 
more  and  more  every  year,  for  civilization  creates  wants  which 
will  extend  enormously. 

The  Chinese  Government  has  granted  a concession  to  its  own 
subjects  to  build  a railroad  from  a city  on  the  coast  to  Peking, 
over  1,000  miles,  and  a railroad  is  now  being  constructed  from 
the  north  coast  of  the  Empire  to  the  boundary  line  between  it 
and  Russia. 

Every  indication  of  that  kind  tends  to  show  that  in  the  slow 
process  of  time — and  events  have  always  been  si  ow  to  that  people  — 
great  advantages  are  destined  to  come  t<)  the  civilized  world. 
Why,  then,  provoke  antagonism?  Why  build  up  a wall  higher 
and  more  impregnable  than  the  Chinese  wall  was  in  the  old  time 
before  the  Tartar  invasion? 

Mr.  President,  no  country  in  Europe  has  such  legislation  as 
that  against  which  I speak.  Deportations  of  peoples  have  not 
been  unknown  in  history,  but  they  have  been  infrequent.  The 
Spaniards  expelled  the  Moors  from  Spain.  History  has  writ- 
ten her  lines  of  reprobation  over  that  atrocity,  and  Spain  has 
700 


20 


never  recovered  from  it  to  this  day.  The  edict  of  Nantes  was 
revoked,  and  the  best  and  most  industrious  people  in  France 
fled  from  that  kingdom  and  built  up  great  industries  in  Eng- 
land; many  of  them  came  to  South  Carolina  and  formed  some  of 
the  choicest  blood  in  that  State.  Russia  has  expelled  the  Jews, 
and  how  the  moral  sentiment  of  the  civilized  world  has  risen 
against  the  deed!  It  has  provoked  the  protest  of  the  religious 
press,  the  indignation  of  every  tolerant  man,  and  it  h;'s  un- 
locked the  colTers  of  charity.  The  President  of  the  United 
States  saw  fit  to  give  to  Congress  in  his  message  an  expression 
of  his  disapproval,  and  he  voiced  the  sentiment  of  this  country. 
Yet  all  the  time  this  was  going  on,  we  have  been  legislating 
and  insisting  with  Pharisaical  self-righteousne.ss  in  regard  to 
the  Chinese  precisely  in  the  manner  in  which  the  autocrat  of 
Russia  has  been  proceeding  against  the  Jews,  and  for  which  we 
reprobated  him. 

Upon  the  table  of  the  Secretary  lie  the  protests  of  some  of  the 
best  elements  of  this  country,  and  among  them  the  protests  of 
faculties  of  univei’sities.  We  may  say  in  a cynical  way,  “ we  shall 
not  regard  them;  they  are  not  minding  their  business:  they  would 
best  attend  to  their  own  concerns;  ” but  I tell  you  that  there  is  a 
voice  in  this  country  which  will  not  be  stilled,  but  which  will  be 
heard.  We  can  not  afford,  no  party  can  afford — and  I speak  now 
f.rom  no  party  standpoint  whatever — no  party  can  afford  to  ignore 
or  treat  with  silent  contempt,  or  pass  by  such  protests  as  these. 
That  was  tried  in  the  days  of  slavery.  It  failed,  and  if  public 
sentiment  ever  awakens  upon  this  subject  we  shall  not  then  at- 
tempt by  these  devices  and  tricks  of  legislation  to  accomplish 
that  indirectly  which  we  would  not  dare  to  attempt  directly. 

Opposed  as  I am  to  Chinese  immigration,  wishing  to  see  this 
evil  remedied,  let  me  call  attention  to  another  fact. 

What  is  this  Mongolian  horde  that  will  overrun  this  country 
like  the  hordes  of  Ghengis  Khan?  The  United  States  has 
65,000,000  people.  How  many  Chinese  are  there  in  the  United 
States?  One  hundred  and  six  thousand  according  to  the  last 
census.  There  is  not  a thousand  difference  between  the  num- 
ber who  were  here  in  1890,  according  to  the  census,  and  the 
number  here  in  1880.  In  1880  the  Chinese  population  of  San 
Francisco  was  25,000  in  round  numbers;  in  1890,  it  was  21,000 — 
a falling  off  of  4,000.  By  natural  processes  this  matter  is  being 
settled. 

Mr.  President,  I have  taken  more  time  than  I intended,  but 
the  subject  is  one  of  large  proportions  and  of  inflnite  complexity 
the  more  it  is  considered. 

This  is  a very  small  part  of  the  case  in  opposition  to  the  sys- 
tem of  legislation  now  protested  against.  Much  more  might  be 
said  of  it.  Opposed  as  I am  to  Chinese  immigration,  wishing  to 
see  the  contact  of  that  people  with  ours  cease  as  soon  as  possible, 
I do  desire  to  see  expelled  from  our  statute  books  this  flagitious 
and  ferocious  legislation  which  it  is  proposed  to  continue  and 
make  more  efficacious  by  the  amendment  to  the  act  of  1892,  now 
under  consideration. 

700 


O 


